I tried submitting this letter to the editor but the form refused it. Anyone is welcomed to try doing it for me or submitting your own to respond to Mr. Campbell….

I’m writing in response to this letter you published by Mr. Campbell. I found that it contains both inaccuracies and makes implications which are mistaken.

• The scientific community is mostly either atheist or nonreligious. Also, it is not the goal of science to “reconcile our existence without god”. The issue of gods simply has no bearing on scientific pursuits any more than the issue of Brad and Angelina’s adoptions.

• There is no demonstrable evidence for any gods

• Quoting poets to prove what atheists think does nothing of the sort, but does serve to prove something of the character of the one doing so.

• Darwin, as far as anyone knows, was not an atheist, and he most certainly didn’t have a deathbed conversion. That’s an old lie that Christians have been telling probably ever since the great man died.

I would hazard a guess that it is actually the Christian at night, during the day, and all times in-between, who half doubts or more the existence of their god, and when they encounter anything which adds to that doubt like atheists and their writing, their anxiety of doubt magnifies, causing them to both make outspoken shows of their supposed solid faith and lash out against what threatens it. Sadly, that often includes false implications and flat out lies.

I know not what personal doubts Mr. Campbell is wrestling with, but I suggest he deal with such personal issues on his own and not resort to casting lies and aspersions on atheists as a solution.

Mormons, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists all lie when they support their dogmas. I don’t think the same can be said about atheists though, it then becomes different because the atheist naturalist is telling the truth when making the assertion that there are no supernatural entities or supernatural phenominon that have been shown to exist.

With that being said, the reason the religious assert their beliefs is to gain instant authority over their religious peers, and that is why the atheist naturalist gets them mad, it’s because it’s a defiance against their self-proclaimed authority even when they aren’t an authority on such matters as truth and beauty.

When a given fallacy is repeated over and over, through many years and even generations, despite the fact that it was disproved almost from the moment it was first offered – can we stop calling it a mistake and describe it for what it has become – a lie?

“When a given fallacy is repeated over and over, through many years and even generations, despite the fact that it was disproved almost from the moment it was first offered – can we stop calling it a mistake and describe it for what it has become – a lie?”How true… it’s worked for Darwinism, this long!

Chief, in answer to your letter, point by point:

The scientific community is not comprised primarily of infidels. In fact, when most thinking infidels see the evidence, they convert. Such is the power of REAL science, apart from Dawkinism.

There is plenty of evidence for God’s existence. Infidels of your class, however, have placed themselves far beyond any hope of ever noticing them, though.

I’d quote Adolf Hitler if it helped me make a point. In fact, I have! On the other hand, someone who goes around slandering Christ and His followers, doesn’t generate much in the way of laudable character, either!

No, Darwin certainly wasn’t an atheist. He, like most infidels of half a wit, had an axe to grind against the God he well knew existed, and that was why he set off on the path he did. He did recant, on his deathbed, according to the witness of those close to him at his demise. That eventuality, one could surmise, would be consistent with the devotion that he had as a youth. If you choose not to believe this, that’s really your problem, but, it hardly disproves the assertion.

And, as I’ve stated, professed atheists of even half a wit have not only had second thoughts, but have converted over the available evidence for intelligent design.

You know what I’d pay money to see? Him arguing with another whackaloon like a Jehovah Witness, Catholic, maybe one of those snake handling Christians, or perhaps a Muslim. Yeah, I’d sit my ass down with some nachos and beer and watch that.

I recently converted to Christianity, and I have to say that you are stupid amd dumb and a idiot.

I know now that the Bibles (all of them_) are the word of god, and if you’re an “Athiest, well… I will pray for you.

Emauil me and I will teach you about the Lord Jesus Christ. I think you need to get smart and accept the Lord Jesus as your saviour. I like you art, and God gave you a gift. Its the ultimate sim to throw God’s gift of art back in His face and use it attack Him

John 20:27“Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Put your finger on me, and put your hand on my side. And I will show you the path to the Lord.

again morons try to “proove” their imaginary things by fallacy of examples (aka argument from authority). I mean, even if Darwin believed in god or had a deathbed conversation, it changes nothing. Evolution is still true and gods STILL ARE IMAGINARY THINGS.

Another Wiki-wizard in our midst? Funny… whenever I quoted the online encyclopedia, it never seemed good enough for you infidels! Now, it seems to be, though!

I suppose that you’d have to take the word of an atheist for it… which is what Francis was, and, probably, like you, desperate to maintain an illusion.

Interesting, though, that Francis, himself, (and this is using your own reference, NAL) referred to his father as an agnostic. That’s a long way from being an atheist.

Also, I believe (as Darwin’s daughter ‘believed’) that I would still take his life, pre-Beagle, as a devout believer, as a good indication of a suppressed faith that even those dedicated infidels like Voltaire couldn’t quite kill.

Yes, and Wikipedia, by the way, is currently censored by a self-appointed group of infidels like yourselves, whom I have run up against in the past. In fact, I had them visiting my blog (another one I had, previously) and attacking me over mine and other’s expose of their suppression of 9/11 information to suit the ‘official’ story, which is a fucking lie, just like Evolution.

So, revel in your misinformation, dupes! You can break out the Nachos and the beer, Chief, and drink yourself into whatever level of stupor you deem necessary. I have debated many JW’s, Catholics, etc, and even those of my own particular denomination. At the very least, they all are in agreement over something that easily escapes you… that Evolution is bullshit contrived by pagans to entertain the simple.

“I mean, even if Darwin believed in god or had a deathbed conversation, it changes nothing. Evolution is still true and gods STILL ARE IMAGINARY THINGS. It would still confirm the fact that you’re an idiot, MaketheUniverseCum!

So why should Thomas get to jam his finger in a god’s hole but all of us are supposed to just take shit on faith, and if we don’t, we get roasted for eternity? The example of Thomas is about as silly as Saul’s road to Damascus moment.

Hey Gideon, how do I know whether you are right or not if I don’t even know what you believe? You say your religion goes back millenia before my supposed “comic book religion” does. I’ve got more questions for you though….

Who are some of the major historical characters in your religion, and what are they known for?

According to your religious beliefs, then, who was the historical founder(s) of my “atheist comic book religion” as your religion tends to call it?

Also, what role does “comic book religion(s)” play in the allowance of Communism, whereby Big Government takes control of the stock market and ultimately takes control of other people’s minds?

Are you sure that your religion isn’t playing any role in trying to stop Communism? And if not, then can I deduce that you dislike Communism for peerly secular reasons like I do?

He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution. As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn’t. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution ….

Nal, since you didn’t read my first comment, I’ll spell it out for you;

I’ve encountered this before, ironically, debating with Christians. All I know is what I’ve told you, in that I’m assuming from his past as a devout Christian, that he might have recanted his bullshit evolutionary stance when I heard that there was a deathbed confession. I couldn’t verify it, but, then, it really doesn’t affect my belief, any. Your ‘proof’ could as easily be falsified as mine, so there we are. Sidetracking me doesn’t destroy my arguments at all.

I’m not going to judge the man, that isn’t my job. He was, IMHO, a victim of the vitriol of some infidel writers of the day.

I use a different tactic in my witnessing, due to the fact that it is so easy to falsify information, and, with people being too lazy to go much further than Wikipedia, online, it would be simple for those with an agenda (and I’ve met a few) to hijack the forum and slant views in their favor. I appeal to people’s common sense, and, in a philosophical way, merely try and get them to think about what the consequences of their opinions must inevitably lead to.

We live in a society that feels it has to be shown everything. As Quiff is so fond of displaying, they need some equation or quote to verify anything that’s told to them, never thinking how easily those can be doctored in the favor of the one telling it. Oh, yes, infidels accuse Christians of doing it all the time, but, they never even consider the possibility that atheists might try the same tactic!

I didn’t “claim” anything, other than according to some, he did make a deathbed confession. If he didn’t, like one other wag here stated, it doesn’t matter a hill of beans toward verifying Evolution of The Species as anything other than the bullshit it is.

If you’re going to hinge everything on whether or not Darwin fessed up, then you better do the same with other infidel attempts to produce a desired result.

I don’t know that he didn’t recant, so I could hardly be lying. But, there is enough evidence there to produce reasonable doubt, and that is all that’s needed in any court of law.

Quiff, you’ll find all of the major characters of my religion in one black book. You’ll also find the original instigator of doubt in God, there. Communism, or more rightly Socialism, is just an offshoot of Atheism. It teaches that all religions are opiates, and stresses a society based upon the works of man apart from God. So, in that sense, Christianity represents a threat to the overall success of government in controlling the masses.

Well, Gideon, I’ll agree that most Christians are on the right side of the political spectrum, as opposed to the left side that is.

So, which black book (I’m assuming you mean “The Bible” here, although as we all know each religion has a book that comes in a selection of different colors and so it’s possible to have a “Black Ghitta” or a “Black Book of Mormon” or etc) in particular do you read Gideon, which translation is/are the best one(s) in your opinion?

Which particular characters in your “Black Book” do you fantasize about or try to emulate? (I’ll assume it’s Gideon, but I don’t really know anything about your personal fantasies and/or ??Possible Religious Fetishes??)

Do you ever think or fantasize about Jesus and Solomon there Gideon?

Have you ever had one of those “Church Induced Orgasms” and then Cheese and Wine/Crackers afterwards that I heared about in the previous post or is that one a different version of Christianity?

I think I’ll just stick to my favorite Pink Paradise videos then, I don’t think I want to replace that with going to church and getting lied to on Sundays, unless there happens to be a choir girl that wants to give me a handy or sucky or something.

Gideon“Approx. 6000 years +/-”“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”,“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”…

“I appeal to people’s common sense, and, in a philosophical way, merely try and get them to think about what the consequences of their opinions must inevitably lead to.”And when were you planning to start doing that?

“But, there is enough evidence there to produce reasonable doubt, and that is all that’s needed in any court of law.”Actually, you don’t. It’s hearsay, and inadmissible since it wasn’t given in court under oath (and if it had been…it would’ve been perjury)

Even your buddy Richard Dawkins couldn’t give an affirmative on the new information question, so your pathetic attempt to slide through on DUPLICATED info, is not only demeaning to you, it’s insulting to me.

You’ve proven, again, what so many of you do, time and again… it’s you that’s devoid of understanding, not me, and I certainly can’t seem to help that.

Gideon“Even your buddy Richard Dawkins couldn’t give an affirmative on the new information question, so your pathetic attempt to slide through on DUPLICATED info, is not only demeaning to you, it’s insulting to me.”The duplicated info then mutates (and is selected for) separately. It’s not that complicated.If you want to know where the originial DNA came from, kudos, you’ve found a gap large enough to drive God through (people are looking at plausible pathways to the first cell, a la).If you want to know why you have three colour vision while farther back in deep time our ancestor’s ancestors didn’t, that’s gene duplicate. Those duplicates eventually become their own special specialnesses.

“You’ve proven, again, what so many of you do, time and again… it’s you that’s devoid of understanding, not me…”Tu quoque?

“…and I certainly can’t seem to help that.”You can read, right? Books are full of stuff that you seem entirely ignorant of.